The British Columbia Court of Appeal has considered Alberta the appropriate forum for an employer’s action alleging that its former president and chief executive officer spent time and resources doing work for another company in which he had an interest.
In Bit v. Krahn Engineering Ltd., 2025 BCCA 167, the respondent recruited the appellant from a fellow engineering firm and employed him as its vice president for operations in Alberta in 2014. The appellant served as the company’s president and CEO after 2018.
The respondent fired him, allegedly for cause, via a November 2023 letter of termination. In February 2024, it brought a civil claim seeking to enforce a debt against CTA Architecture and Design Ltd., the other company for which the appellant did work, before the British Columbia Supreme Court (BCSC).
On Mar. 1, 2024, the respondent filed an employment law action before the BCSC. The respondent alleged that the appellant failed to reply to work emails, improperly used a company vehicle and his corporate expense account, breached his fiduciary and contractual duties to his employer when he did work for CTA, and caused losses.
The appellant countered that he and the respondent’s principal had a disagreement when the latter started stripping the respondent of financial assets to decrease its value while embroiled in proceedings involving a divorce and the division of assets.
On Mar. 14, 2024, the appellant applied under BC’s Court Jurisdiction and Proceedings Transfer Act, 2003, to stay the employment action based on a lack of jurisdiction or Alberta being the more convenient forum. He wanted the related cases to proceed together in Alberta, where he resided.
In June 2024, the chambers judge dismissed the appellant’s application based on BC’s territorial competence, an even balance in the factors weighing in favour of each province’s convenience as a forum, the lack of exclusivity in the forum selection clause in the parties’ employment contract, and the fact that the parties had not yet started an action in Alberta.
In July 2024, the respondent initiated an oppression action against the appellant in Alberta against the appellant, CTA, and other parties under Alberta’s Business Corporations Act, 2000.
Action stayed in BC
The Court of Appeal for British Columbia allowed the appeal, set aside the chambers judge’s order, stayed the employment action, and admitted the new evidence regarding the Alberta action, given that it arose after the hearing, was credible, was relevant to a decisive issue, and could impact the case’s outcome.
The appeal court said both actions would entail a determination of the central question of whether the respondent’s principal fully knew and authorized the parties’ involvement with CTA as a synergetic corporation acquired to build up the respondent’s business. The appeal court added that hearing the actions in different jurisdictions could lead to conflicting findings on that issue.
The appeal court ruled that the oppression action’s filing in Alberta tipped the scales in favour of that province being the more appropriate forum. The appeal court held that the Alberta Court of King’s Bench was well-placed to address the oppression and employment actions, considering that CTA was an Alberta corporation.